My Evaluation of Grace Central Church, Gilbert SC

Being recently retired from secular employment, I have been looking to join with a local congregation.  My employment was a traveling job and kept me away from home.  I lean in the direction of a good Evangelical presbyterian church.  The only churches in my area in that category are either Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), or Associate Reformed Presbyterian (ARP).  There choices are few.  Lexington PCA near me in Lexington, SC is part of the Tim Keller social justice nonsense and the Revoice movement, which legitimizes sexual orientation as an inborn predisposition rather than a sympton of total depravity.

The ARP churches are mixed.  The small ones are not much better than the large PCA church I just mentioned.  First Presbyterian Church in Columbia, SC has traditional worship and is fairly conservative, though there are few signs of compromise.  One minister suggested that Jesus didn't really fast for forty days in the desert; instead Jesus took other sustenance along the way.  Also, the ARP churches ordain women to the office of deacon, a clear violation of the qualifications for deacons as the husband of one wife.

So when I heard about Grace Central Church in Gilbert, SC, I thought why not give it a try.  The church purports to be in the same line as John MacArthur.  The pastor, Bud Moss, reports that he is a graduate of The Master's Seminary in California.  

I have visited there several times without any problems.  The worship was from the hymn book published by The Master's Seminary.  The sermons are fairly exegetical, though I detected a few times that the pastor was not adequately prepared.

What troubles me most are a few red flags.  First, the church has no doctrinal statement posted on the church website, other than a few brief distinctives here:

Distinctives:  Grace Central Church

 . . .We offer the following 7 Distinctives of Grace Central Church.

The Sovereignty of God

Grace Central Church affirms God’s sovereignty over all things (Psalm 115:3). Therefore, we will maintain a high view of God and a low view of man in terms of our worship, our view of salvation, and our philosophy of ministry.

The Sufficiency of Scripture

Grace Central Church affirms that Scripture is inerrant, infallible, and sufficient (Psalm 19:7-14). Therefore, we will feature expository preaching and biblical counseling.

Biblical Eldership

Grace Central Church affirms what the Bible teaches about church leadership (1 Timothy 3:1-7). Therefore, we will be ruled and served by a plurality of biblically-qualified elders.

Church Membership

Grace Central church affirms the importance of Christians being added to a local body of believers (Acts 2:41;47). Therefore, we will practice formal church membership.

Church Discipline

Grace Central Church affirms the Scriptural mandate to keep the church pure and free from the leaven of unrepentant sin (Matthew 18:15-20). Therefore, we will practice church discipline.

The Family

Grace Central Church affirms God’s creation of the family, and His designation of the roles within the family. Therefore, we will encourage families to obey God’s design for husbands, wives, parents, and children.

Evangelizing Children

Grace Central Church affirms God’s sovereignty over salvation and man’s responsibility to preach the gospel. Therefore, we will preach the gospel to our children while trusting the Lord’s sovereignty over their salvation.

I for one do not trust churches with bulletin lists of preferences, rather than a somewhat detailed doctrinal statement.  You will notice that there is no mention of believer's baptism versus infant baptism.  There is no mention of continuationism or cessationism in regards to the gifts of the Holy Spirit.  In fact, I encountered one guy who said that he was formerly a member of a Calvary Chapel church.  The young man then claimed that Grace was a non-denominational church, to which I responded that there is no such thing as a non-denominational church.  This is my first red flag.  Any church that claims to be non-denominational is basing its ministry on a blatant violation of the 9th commandment, "Thou shalt not bear false witness . . ."

Although there is an indirect admission that the church is dispensational, to learn this information you would have to hear the pastor preach on his views on eschatology.  Furthermore, there is no mention in the doctrinal statements about any commitment to the trinity, the incarnation of Christ as both God and man, no mention of the doctrine of sola Scriptura or any of the other four solas of the Protestant Reformation.

There is no mention of Lordship Salvation, though this emphasis on sanctification is one of John MacArthur's primary emphases.  Also, where is the mention of justification by faith alone?  MacArthur himself does not have a detailed doctrinal statement on his website, but anyone can listen to his sermons and gather that he has at least some commitment to the doctrines of the London Baptist Confession of Faith, 1689.

Last Sunday, the pastor, Bud Moss, preached a sermon on pride and attacked anyone who didn't agree with his church as proud Pharisees.  He also attacked presbyterians as either postmillennialists or amillennialists, while affirming his own views on the rapture, the premillennial rapture, and a thousand year reign of Christ.  Apparently, Moss did not realize that some presbyterians, including the late Dr. Gordon H. Clark, agree with a premillennial return of Christ.  Furthermore, the Westminster Confession itself does not specifically mention the rapture.  It does, however, mention the return of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to judge the world, but does not specify exactly whether it is premillennial, amillennial or postmillennial:

III. As Christ would have us to be certainly persuaded that there shall be a day of judgment, both to deter all men from sin, and for the greater consolation of the godly in their adversity; so will he have that day unknown to men, that they may shake off all carnal security, and be always watchful, because they know not at what hour the Lord will come; and may be ever prepared to say, Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly. Amen.  WCF  33:3.

I was more than willing to join the church and support it if I were in fact welcome there.  But after learning that I am not welcome there, I won't be returning.  In fact, in the sermon on pride, Moss suggested that if you believe anything other than what he teaches, you should find another church.  His sermon sounded more like some of the Pentecostal sermons I have heard decades ago that suggested that you should never question the pastor's sermons because that would violate the principle of "touch not mine anointed".  ( 1 Chronicles 16:22; Psalm 105:15). You can listen to the sermon here:  The Pain of Pride Part 2.

In this sermon the pastor, following the Pentecostal view, suggested that we should never question the doctrinal positions of other churches because they are doing the Lord's work: 

And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us. (Lk. 9:50 KJV)

Unfortunately, Jesus also said that whoever is not for him is against him:

He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. (Matt. 12:30 KJV)

I for one do not equate berating other Christians with exegetical preaching.  It's also sinful to accuse other Christians of being proud for having differing views of what the Bible teaches on non-essential matters.  It was interesting to note that Moss admitted that there is no such thing as a non-denominational church, while doubling down on the fact that his church is a non-denominational church. 

I understand that planting a new church requires strong leadership.  Pastors do not want to deal with anyone who is knowledgeable about the Bible and might question certain aspects of the ministry.  But if a pastor is that insecure, what's the point of starting a new church?  I noticed that there is little emphasis on studying the Bible for oneself.  The other problem I have with the church is the use of a modern translation for preaching.  I am not sure if the preferred translation is the ESV or the Legacy Bible.  Either way, it is based on highly questionable textual criticism.  If I were to use a modern translation it would be the New King James Version.  However, I still prefer the KJV.

Another issue for me is that it seems that church discipline is only about moral issues, not doctrinal issues.  Suppose a church member was pushing a heresy or causing disruption over a doctrinal distinction?  Would that be cause for church discipline?

I will close here.  This is an impromptu response.  I could have missed a few other complaints I had about the church.  In short, though, I would not feel comfortable with recommending this church.  I would prefer either a Reformed Baptist church or one of the more traditional Presbyterian churches in the Lexington or West Columbia area. 

 

 

A Brief Response to Last Sunday's Election Sermon by Dr. Neil Stewart

 

A Short Response to Last Sunday’s Election Sermon by Dr. Neil Stewart

 

Sermon Text:  Romans 13:1-7 ESV.  1 Timothy 2:1-6 ESV

 

This post is about First Presbyterian Church, Columbia, South Carolina.  The current pastor is Dr. Neil Stewart, who is an Irishman who testifies that he was converted in northern Ireland under the ministry of Dr. Derek Thomas. 

Although this sermon was overall very good and to the point, there were a few objectionable portions which I would like to address.  In the spirit of fairness, therefore, I will give a commentary on the video which is posted on YouTube with appropriate minute marks.  To give brevity to this article I will only comment on the objectionable portions.  The reader is invited to listen to the entire video in context here:  November 3^rd, 2024.

In this sermon, Dr. Stewart addresses the comparison of theonomy with the enduring moral law.  He also addresses the issue of woke ideology and the Frankfort school of Marxism.  Modern day Marxists have applied Marxist ideology to racial inequality and sexual orientation.  Unfortunately, Dr. Stewart was not clear on where he lands on these issues.  His sermon is mostly descriptive, not a defense of the biblical view of these things.  The most telling prevarication in the sermon is when he gets into the issue of gay marriage.  At around the 1:21:30 minute mark, Dr. Stewart makes the following remark verbatim:

“So gay marriage for example—now if you’re homosexual, hetero,uh, uh, or same sex attracted,  you are welcome in this church.  Your sins are no dirtier than mine.  We both need the same Savior.”

On the surface these seem like benign remarks.  It was an ex-tempore remark in the middle of a sermon.  However, knowing the theological commitments of mainstream Evangelical Presbyterianism, I can tell you that the doctrine of common grace lies beneath this compromise.  The idea that evangelism and mission is more important than biblical exegesis, systematic theology, and the Reformed confessional standards is the reason that large denominations go liberal. 

The problem here is that Dr. Stewart indirectly acknowledges that same sex attraction is due to some sort of inborn biological or genetic predisposition.  The ideology of sexual orientation was in fact invented by socialists who were pushing the sexual revolution in order to radically redefine western culture.  Dr. Stewart does touch on this in his description of woke ideology.  The problem is that he never gives the biblical answer to the problem.  The Bible teaches that sin comes from the fall of Adam and original sin.  The doctrine of total depravity or total inability means that a homosexual person is unable to repent unless and until God Himself regenerates that person and makes him or her free from their slavery to sexual immorality.

 

The late Dr. Gordon H. Clark, an expert in philosophy and apologetics, rebutted the argument that there is a biological predisposition to sin in his commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 9, Of Free Will.  The confession says:

 

I. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined, to good or evil.a

 

a.      Deut 30:19; Mat 17:12; James 1:14.  [See:  Chapter IX, Of Free Will]

 

If you will read the chapter carefully, you will see that paragraph I is talking about Adam’s will prior to the fall.  The other paragraphs talk about man’s condition after the fall.  And in paragraphs III and IV the natural man under natural bondage is a reference to the total and complete corruption of fallen man’s human nature.  The image of God has not been eradicated because man is a rational creature.  But the image of God is so thoroughly corrupted that he is unable to think only good thoughts anymore.  He is unable to free himself from sin.  But the problem is a spiritual problem of the soul, not a biological problem:

What then does the Confession mean by the natural liberty of the will?  The remainder of the section quoted answers this question as well as two lines can.  Man’s will “is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined . . .”  These words were written to repudiate those philosophies which explain human conduct in terms of physico-chemical law.  Although the Westminster divines did not know twentieth century behaviorism, nor even Spinoza, they very probably knew Thomas Hobbes, and they certainly knew earlier materialistic theories.  That man’s conduct is determined by inanimate forces is what the Confession denies.  Man is not a machine; his motions cannot be described by mathematical equations as can the motions of the planets.  His hopes, plans and activities are not controlled by physical conditions.  He is not determined by any absolute necessity of nature.

Furthermore, Dr. Stewart’s remark that homosexual sins are no dirtier than his sin is flat wrong.  How do I know this?  I know because the Westminster Larger Catechism says so without any equivocation whatsoever.  Some sins are more egregiously evil than other sins.  Even our criminial justice system shows this.  The Marxist ideology wants to make all crime the same and to make the criminal the victim of an unjust and racist system.  They want to make the homosexual a victim instead of a pervert who has violated the moral law of God.  To his credit, Dr. Stewart does mention some of this in his summary of woke ideology.  But to say that all sins are equal in the eyes of God, as he implied, is a direct contradiction of the Bible and the Westminster Larger Catechism with proof texts. 

Dr. Stewart correctly distinguishes between the moral law, the civil law of Old Testament Israel, and the ceremonial and sacrificial laws of the Old Testament.  He rejects theonomy on steroids and correctly says that the civil laws of Israel passed away with that nation.  However, he correctly says that the moral law is forever binding on both unbelievers and believers.  The Westminster Standards deals with this in the Confession and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms.  Due to the brevity of this article I will not cite or quote those sections here.

To show that Dr. Stewart incorrectly equated homosexual sins with heterosexual sins and other sins, you can read the WLC questions and answers below:

 

Q. 150. Are all transgressions of the law of God equally heinous in themselves, and in the sight of God?

A. All transgressions of the law of God are not equally heinous; but some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.

 

John 19:11; Ezek. 8:6, 13, 15; 1 John 5:16; Ps. 78:17, 32, 56.

 

Q. 151. What are those aggravations that make some sins more heinous than others?

A. Sins receive their aggravations,

 

1. From the persons offending: if they be of riper age, greater experience or grace, eminent for profession, gifts, place, office, guides to others, and whose example is likely to be followed by others.

 

2. From the parties offended: if immediately against God, his attributes, and worship; against Christ, and his grace; the Holy Spirit, his witness, and workings; against superiors, men of eminency, and such as we stand especially related and engaged unto; against any of the saints, particularly weak brethren, the souls of them or any other, and the common good of all or many.

 

3. From the nature and quality of the offence: if it be against the express letter of the law, break many commandments, contain in it many sins: if not only conceived in the heart, but break forth in words and actions, scandalize others, and admit of no reparation: if against means, mercies, judgments, light of nature, conviction of conscience, public or private admonition, censures of the church, civil punishments; and our prayers, purposes, promises, vows, covenants, and engagements to God or men: if done deliberately, wilfully, presumptuously, impudently, boastingly, maliciously, frequently, obstinately, with delight, continuance, or relapsing after repentance.

 

4. From circumstances of time and place: if on the Lord’s day, or other times of divine worship; or immediately before or after these, or other helps to prevent or remedy such miscarriages: if in public, or in the presence of others, who are thereby likely to be provoked or defiled.

 

Jer. 2:8; Job 32:7, 9; Ecc. 4:13; 1 Kings 11:4, 9; 2 Sam. 12:14; 1 Cor. 5:1; Jas. 4:17; Luke 12:47-48; Jer. 5:4-5; 2 Sam. 12:7-9; Ezek. 8:11-12; Rom. 2:17-24; Gal. 2:11-14; Matt. 21:38-39; 1 Sam. 2:25; Acts 5:4; Ps. 51:4; Rom. 2:4; Mal. 1:8, 14; Heb. 2:2-3; Heb. 12:25; Heb. 10:29; Matt. 12:31-32; Eph. 4:30; Heb. 6:4-6; Jude 1:8; Num. 12:8-9; Isa. 3:5; Prov. 30:17; 2 Cor. 12:15; Ps. 55:12-15; Zeph. 2:8, 10-11; Matt. 18:6; 1 Cor. 6:8; Rev. 17:6; 1 Cor. 8:11-12; Rom. 14:13, 15, 21; Ezek. 13:19; 1 Cor. 8:12; Rev. 18:12-13; Matt. 23:15; 1 Thess. 2:15-16; Josh. 22:20; Prov. 6:30-33; Ezra 9:10-12; 1 Kings 11:9-10; Col. 3:5; 1 Tim. 6:10; Prov. 5:8-12; Prov. 6:32-33; Josh. 7:21; Jas. 1:14-15; Matt. 5:22; Mic. 2:1; Matt. 18:7; Rom. 2:23-24; Deut. 22:22, 28-29; Prov. 6:32-35; Matt. 11:21-24; John 15:22; Isa. 1:3; Deut. 32:6; Amos 4:8-11; Jer. 5:3; Rom. 1:26-27; Rom. 1:32; Dan. 5:22; Titus 3:10-11; Prov. 29:1; Titus 3:10; Matt. 18:17; Prov. 27:22: Prov. 23:35; Ps. 78:34-37; Jer. 2:20; Jer. 42:5-6, 20, 21; Ecc. 5:4-6; Prov. 20:25; Lev. 26:25; Prov. 2:17; Ezek. 17:18-19; Ps. 36:4; Jer. 6:16; Num. 15:30; Ex. 21:14; Jer. 3:3; Prov. 7:13; Ps. 52:1; 3 John 1:10; Num. 14:22; Zech. 7:11-12; Prov. 2:14; Isa. 57:17; Jer. 34:8-11; 2 Pet. 2:20-22; 2 Kings 5:26; Jer. 7:10; Isa. 26:10; Ezek. 23:37-39; Isa. 58:3-5; Num. 25:6-7; 1 Cor. 11:20-21; Jer. 7:8-10; Prov. 7:14-15; John 13:27, 30; Ezra 9:13-14; 2 Sam. 16:22; 1 Sam. 2:22-24.

 

Q. 152. What doth every sin deserve at the hands of God?

A. Every sin, even the least, being against the sovereignty, goodness, and holiness of God, and against his righteous law, deserveth his wrath and curse, both in this life, and that which is to come; and cannot be expiated but by the blood of Christ.

 

Jas. 2:10-11; Ex. 20:1-2; Hab. 1:13; Lev. 10:3; Lev. 11:44-45; 1 John 3:4; Rom. 7:12; Eph. 5:6; Gal. 3:10; Lam. 3:39; Deut. 28:15-68; Matt. 25:41; Heb. 9:22; 1 Pet. 1:18-19.

 

Q. 153. What doth God require of us, that we may escape his wrath and curse due to us by reason of the transgression of the law?

A. That we may escape the wrath and curse of God due to us by reason of the transgression of the law, he requireth of us repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, and the diligent use of the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation.

 

Acts 20:21; Matt. 3:7-8; Luke 13:3, 5; Acts 16:30-31; John 3:16, 18; Prov. 2:1-5; Prov. 8:33-36.

 

[See:  The Westminster Larger Catechism 150-153.]

 

 

 

 

 

The Judgment Seat of Christ or God? A Brief Study of Romans 14:10

 

The Judgment Seat of Christ or the Judgment Seat of God?  A Brief Study of Romans 14:10

 

Although I am not a textual critic, I do have some tools at my disposal.  Without doubt the internet’s availability of online resources is a huge help.  One of the  most difficult issues for anyone who wants to study a textual critical issue in the Bible is deciphering the textual critical symbols and notes in the footnote apparatus of critical editions of the Greek New Testament.

I became interested in studying this verse after sitting in church on October 13^th, 2024 and hearing the reading of the text for a sermon given.  I have a habit of following along in my King James Version just to see of any textual variants popup during the reading of the English Standard Version, which is the preferred translation at the church I have been attending.  The verse that stood out on this Lord’s Day was Romans 14:10.  A further problem with the ESV is that the 2002 edition does not even have a footnote to indicate that the text has been changed.  I will quote it here in both translations for your reading:

“But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.” (Romans 14:10, KJV 1900)

“Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God;” (Romans 14:10, ESV)

The Greek readings are as follows:

“σὺ δὲ τί κρίνεις τὸν ἀδελφόν σου; ἢ καὶ σὺ τί ἐξουθενεῖς τὸν ἀδελφόν σου; πάντες γὰρ παραστησόμεθα τῷ βήματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ.” (Romans 14:10, Scrivener 1881)

“συ δε τι κρινεις τον αδελφον σου η και συ τι εξουθενεις τον αδελφον σου παντες γαρ παραστησομεθα τω βηματι του χριστου” (Romans 14:10, Stephens 1550) 

“συ δε τι κρινεις τον αδελφον σου η και συ τι εξουθενεις τον αδελφον σου παντες γαρ παραστησομεθα τω βηματι του χριστου” (Romans 14:10, BYZ)

 

“Σὺ δὲ τί κρίνεις τὸν ἀδελφόν σου; ἢ καὶ σὺ τί ἐξουθενεῖς τὸν ἀδελφόν σου; πάντες γὰρ παραστησόμεθα τῷ βήματι τοῦ θεοῦ,” (Romans 14:10, NA28)

The textual evidence supporting the readings in the critical editions of the Greek New Testament is not as well attested as they pretend, because the critics are using the reasoned eclecticism approach to textual criticism.  That method involves numerous presupposed principles or axioms of interpretation and reconstruction.  The chosen reading of God rather than Christ has fewer manuscripts, though the critics prefer so-called “earlier” evidences.  In fact, Sinaiticus has the Christ reading, not God.  But the critics say that Sinaiticus has an earlier reading of God which has been corrected by a later reading of Sinaiticus.  Metzger indicates that Sinaiticus was written on parchment.  Apparently, this means that the parchment was erased and written over so that the Greek word for God was replaced by the word for Christ.

It took some time for me to figure this out because the apparatus symbols can be hard to understand without researching the introductions to the various critical editions of the Greek New Testament.  For example, the United Bible Societies, 4^th edition, which I have in hardcopy, lists the evidences for their preferred reading of God first, and then the list of evidences for the reading of Christ second.  The hardcopy I have of the 26^th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament lists the readings for Christ first and the readings for God second, although the preferred reading in the 26^th edition is also God, not Christ.  However, the symbols determine how the apparatus is to be interpreted. 

To save time, I will show you the textual note in the 28^th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, and then explain how I concluded that the critics believe that Sinaiticus was altered by a later redactor:

 

⸀ Χριστου א² C² L P Ψ 048. 0209. 33. 81. 104. 365. 1175. 1241. 1505. 1881 [Majority Text symbol] r vg^cl sy; Polyc Mcion^T Ambst

¦ txt א* A B C* D F G 630. 1506. 1739 lat co

Beginning at the far left of the quote, you can see the ⸀ symbol.  This indicates that the Greek word immediately following is indicated in other manuscripts with variants.  Immediately after that we see the Hebrew letter for aleph with a superscript number 2:  א².  The aleph is the symbol for Codex Sinaiticus.  The subscript number 2 indicates that this is a second corrector, meaning that the critics think that the word for God was erased and replaced by the word for Christ.  Now if you look at the line underneath you will see the aleph symbol with an asterisk: א*.  The abbreviation "txt" indicates that this is the reading chosen for the main body of the eclectic Greek New Testament.  The asterisk is supposed to indicate that this is the original reading in the autographs using the principles or axioms of the science of textual criticism:

 

The original reading of a manuscript (when the reading of a manuscript has been corrected); correlative with ^c or ^1,2,3.  (Footnote from the UBS 5^th edition).

 

The other symbols in both lines are other manuscript evidences.  As you can see, the list of evidences supporting the reading of Christ is much longer, while the bottom line shows only a few manuscripts that support the critical edition of the Greek New Testament rather than the Textus Receptus or the Byzantine reading.

But why is this the case?  I’m glad you asked.  According to Metzger, this is because the older and better manuscripts support the God reading rather than the Christ reading:

 

14:10     θεοῦ {B}

At an early date (Marcion Polycarp Tertullian Origen) the reading θεοῦ, which is supported by the best witnesses (א* A B C* D G 1739 al), was supplanted by Χριστοῦ, probably because of influence from 2 Cor 5:10 (ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ βήματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ).

Metzger, Bruce Manning, United Bible Societies. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.). London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994. Print.

I am using the Logos edition here.  However, I do have the 2^nd edition of the same work in hardcopy, and the quote is identical.  You will note that Metzger does not do anything other than assert that his witnesses are the best witnesses.  And even the reading of theou or θεοῦ is at best rated only with a B, meaning that only three out of the four committee members voted that God is the original word there.  It’s also interesting that Metzger admits that other passages in the New Testament support the reading of Christ.  Another problem with Metzger’s comment is that the 28^th edition of the NA Greek New Testament says that Polycarp, Marcion and Tertullian all support the reading of Christ, not God.  So Metzger deliberately equivocates by placing in parentheses the church fathers as if they support the critical reading, which they do not.  Ambrosiaster, another church father, also supports the reading of Christ.  Marcion was reported by Tertullian as reading this verse with the word Christ.  Although the church fathers are not the final authority, the fact that 2^nd and 3^rd century church fathers support the received text reading is important.

Notice that the context of 2 Corinthians 5:10 and Romans 14:10 both deal with Christians who are members of the visible church.  The great white throne judgment in Revelation 20:11-15  deals with the general judgment of the wicked to execute their just punishments.  The vast majority of Evangelicals have interpreted the judgment seat of Christ to mean that elect Christians who belong to the invisible church will be judged according to their rewards in heaven.

Even the great Princeton theologian, Charles Hodge, although studied in textual criticism, judged that the original autographs read “Christ” and not “God”:

 

Instead of χριστοῦ, at the close verse, the MSS. A. D. E. F. G. read θεοῦ, which is adopted by Mill, Lachmann, and Tischendorf. The common reading is supported by the great majority of the MSS., most of the ancient versions, and almost all the Fathers. It is therefore retained by most critical editors.

Hodge, Charles. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. New Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Louis Kregel, 1882. Print.  [Footnote on Romans 14:10].

 

In view of the fact that the various editions of the Textus Receptus read Christ, and the fact that the Byzantine Majority Text reads the same, I judge that by God’s providence the Reformers were led to accept the received text as the original.  The reasoned eclecticism of the “science” of textual criticism cannot use reason to reconstruct the originals without using presupposed principles or axioms imposed on the process.  How do we know that the shorter and more rough reading is the original? 

As I pointed out in an earlier blog post, textual criticism is an external authority imposed on the text.  Scripture itself is self-authenticating.  This means that the plowboy and the housewife can trust what God has in His providence given us in the Textus Receptus of the Greek New Testament and the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Old Testament.  Furthermore, the King James translation, although not itself inspired, is faithful to the original languages and is therefore superior to modern translations which alter the readings of the Bible to fit with liberal presuppositions and specuations such as the one offered by Bruce Metzger above.  The King James authorized version has been the most read and most used translation of the Bible for over 400 years.  While it is sometimes helpful to laypersons to read more modern translations, they should do so with the awareness of where those translations came from and what the biases of the translators are.  I recommend the New King James Version as the best comparison Bible.

A further advantage of reading the King James Version or the perhaps the Geneva Bible, is that the proof texts in the Reformed confessions, like the 1647 Edinburgh edition of the Westminster Confession of Faith, are more in sync with what the Westminster divines were reading in their English translations.  This is also true of the 1647 editions of the Larger and Shorter Catechisms.

May the peace of God be with you all.

 

---